DOCSLIB.ORG

Space Exploration Review 3 4.4 Resources Required

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Space Exploration Review 3 4.4 Resources Required Foreword This report provides advice to Ministers on the options open to the UK in the field of space exploration. It was agreed by the Minister for Science and Innovation and the Terms of Reference were approved by the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills in May 2008. The report builds on the advice offered to BNSC by the UK Space Exploration Working Group in September 2007 and takes account of reports from other expert bodies and discussions with international partners and other experts. The work was carried out by a small team seconded in to BNSC. The economic analysis was carried out by London Economics who were selected by a competitive bid. The review was overseen by a Steering Committee taken from BNSC, STFC and DIUS1, and including an independent member. Review team Jeremy Curtis (STFC) – Review Leader Prof Louise Harra (Mullard Space Science Laboratory, UCL) Prof John Zarnecki (Open University) Prof Monica Grady (Open University) For London Economics Charlotte Duke – Economics Team Leader Rodney Buckland (independent consultant) Steering Committee Prof Keith Mason (Chairman UK Space Board, CEO STFC) – Chairman Dr David Williams (DG BNSC) Dr David Parker (Director Space Science and Exploration, BNSC) Mark Beatson (Head of Science and Innovation Analysis, DIUS, now BIS) Lord Alec Broers (independent member) 1 DIUS merged with BERR in June 2009 to create the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) 2 IN CONFIDENCE Table of contents 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 7 1.1 The issue ........................................................................................................ 7 1.2 Timing ............................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Options ........................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Background and Rationale ............................................................................. 8 1.5 Analysis.......................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Option 1 – Reduced option .......................................................................... 10 1.7 Option 2 – The current position ................................................................... 12 1.8 Option 3 – Enhanced robotic programme .................................................... 12 1.9 Option 4 – Integrated human and robotic programme ................................. 13 1.10 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 15 2 Background and issues for the UK ...................................................................... 16 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 16 2.2 Overview of this report ................................................................................ 18 2.3 The wider space scene and the UK's role .................................................... 19 2.4 What is space exploration? .......................................................................... 21 2.5 International space exploration scene .......................................................... 25 2.6 Plans of other nations ................................................................................... 28 2.7 Commercial players ..................................................................................... 31 2.8 Opportunities for the UK and UK strengths ................................................ 33 2.9 Use of space for skills and education ........................................................... 34 2.10 Current UK space policy and opportunities ................................................. 37 2.11 Choices for the UK ...................................................................................... 38 2.12 Summary Points ........................................................................................... 38 3 Options for UK investment in space exploration ................................................. 40 3.1 Implementation of options ........................................................................... 41 3.2 Option 1: Reduced option ............................................................................ 44 3.3 Option 2: Current baseline option ................................................................ 46 3.4 Option 3: Enhanced robotic option .............................................................. 50 3.5 Option 4: Human and robotic option ........................................................... 57 4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 68 4.1 Options considered....................................................................................... 68 4.2 Synthesis of benefits .................................................................................... 69 4.3 Meeting Government aims ........................................................................... 77 UK Space Exploration Review 3 4.4 Resources required ....................................................................................... 79 4.5 Delivery........................................................................................................ 81 4.6 Timing .......................................................................................................... 81 4.7 Partners ........................................................................................................ 82 4.8 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 84 Appendix A Terms of Reference ...................................................................... 86 A.1 Summary .............................................................................................. 86 A.2 Purpose ................................................................................................. 86 A.3 Background .......................................................................................... 87 A.4 Global context ...................................................................................... 87 A.5 Timing .................................................................................................. 89 A.6 Objectives ............................................................................................ 89 A.7 Methodology ........................................................................................ 90 Appendix B Plans of other nations ................................................................... 92 B.1 Europe .................................................................................................. 92 B.2 France ................................................................................................... 93 B.3 Germany ............................................................................................... 93 B.4 Italy ...................................................................................................... 93 B.5 United States ........................................................................................ 93 B.6 Canada.................................................................................................. 95 B.7 Japan .................................................................................................... 95 B.8 China .................................................................................................... 96 B.9 Russia ................................................................................................... 97 B.10 India ..................................................................................................... 97 Appendix C Details of options and costs ......................................................... 98 C.1 Options for UK investment in space exploration ................................. 98 C.2 Component elements of each option .................................................... 98 C.3 Detailed cost figures .......................................................................... 102 Appendix D Economic analysis ..................................................................... 107 D.1 Business opportunities enabled by each option ................................. 107 D.2 Case studies ........................................................................................ 111 Case study 1: Lunar drilling ....................................................................... 111 Case Study 2: Low-cost launch technology ............................................... 112 Case Study 3: Lunar communications and navigation ............................... 113 Case Study 4: Oxygen production on the Moon ........................................ 114 Case Study 5: Autonomous robots ............................................................. 115 Case Study 6: Medical applications ........................................................... 116 Case Study 7: Mini magnetospheres for radiation protection .................... 116 Appendix E Meeting the Government's Public Service Agreements............. 118 Appendix F Abbreviations ............................................................................. 123 Appendix G Acknowledgements .................................................................... 124
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MOONLITE : the SCIENTIFIC CASE. IA Crawford1, AJ Ball2, L. Wilson3
    Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIX (2008) 1069.pdf * MOONLITE : THE SCIENTIFIC CASE. I.A. Crawford1, A.J. Ball2, L. Wilson3, A. Smith4, Y. Gao5 and the UK Pene- trator Consortium6. 1School of Earth Sciences, Birkbeck College, London, WC1E 7HX, UK. 2Planetary and Space Sciences Research Institute, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK. 3Department of Environmental Science, Lancaster University, UK. 4Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, UK. 5Surrey Space Centre, University of Surrey, UK.6www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/pages/general/news/UKLPC/UKLPC.pdf. *MoonLITE is a UK-led initiative which is currently the focus of a joint UK-NASA study. (Email: [email protected]). Introduction: The principal scientific importance the lunar crust and upper mantle [4,5]. However, the of the Moon is as a recorder of geological processes deep interior of the Moon was only very loosely con- active in the early history of terrestrial planets (e.g. strained by Apollo seismology due to the geographi- planetary differentiation, magma ocean formation and cally limited coverage of the network (essentially a evolution, etc), and of the near-Earth cosmic environ- triangle between the Apollo 12/14, 15 and 16 sites), so ment throughout Solar System history [1,2]. Although the information obtained on crustal thickness and man- the Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions have in tle structure may not be globally representative. There recent years greatly added to our knowledge of the is now a pressing need for a more widely-spaced net- geochemical and mineralogical makeup of the lunar work of lunar seismic stations, including stations at surface, and these observations will soon be supple- high latitudes and on the farside.
    [Show full text]
  • Moonlite: a UK-Led Mission to the Moon Downloaded from by Guest on 24 September 2021
    CRAWFORD, SMITH: MOONLITE MoonLITE: A UK-led mission to the Moon Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/49/3/3.11/218588 by guest on 24 September 2021 Ian 1: Farside view of the Moon Crawford as seen by the and Alan Clementine spacecraft. Smith Penetrators discuss the launched by the MoonLITE orbiter scientific would allow surface objectives of investigations in areas not visited by Luna, the proposed Surveyor or Apollo missions. MoonLITE mission. (NASA/JPL/USGS) hile the surface missions to during the Apollo programme (see Wiec- the Moon of the 1960s and 1970s zorek et al. 2006, for a review). Moreover, the Wachieved a great deal, scientifically recent remote-sensing missions have themselves much was also left unresolved. The recent ABSTRACT raised questions that will require new surface plethora of lunar missions (flown or proposed) measurements for their resolution, of which reflects a resurgence in interest in the Moon, not MoonLITE is a proposal for a UK-led one of the most important is the circumstantial only in its own right, but also as a recorder of mission to the Moon that will place four evidence for water ice, and by implication other the early history of the Earth–Moon system and penetrators in the lunar surface in order volatiles, within permanently shaded craters at of the interplanetary environment 1 AU from the to make geochemical and geophysical the lunar poles (Feldman et al. 1998). Sun (e.g. Spudis 1996, Crawford 2004, Jolliff measurements that are impossible from In order to make significant further progress et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Cover: Airbus 2050 Future Concept Aircraft
    AEROSPACE 2017 February 44 Number 2 Volume Society Royal Aeronautical www.aerosociety.com ACCELERATING INNOVATION WHY TODAY IS THE BEST TIME EVER TO BE AN AEROSPACE ENGINEER February 2017 PROPELLANTLESS SPACE DRIVES – FLIGHTS OF FANCY? BOOM PLOTS RETURN TO SUPERSONIC FLIGHT INDIA’S NAVAL AIR POWER Have you renewed your Membership Subscription for 2017? Your membership subscription was due on 1 January 2017. As per the Society’s Regulations all How to renew: membership benefits will be suspended where Online: a payment for an individual subscription has Log in to your account on the Society’s www.aerosociety.com not been received after three months of the due website to pay at . If you date. However, this excludes members paying do not have an account, you can register online their annual subscriptions by Direct Debits in and pay your subscription straight away. monthly installments. Additionally members Telephone: Call the Subscriptions Department who are entitled to vote in the Society’s AGM on +44 (0)20 7670 4315 / 4304 will lose their right to vote if their subscription has not been paid. Cheque: Cheques should be made payable to the Royal Aeronautical Society and sent to the Don’t lose out on your membership benefits, Subscriptions Department at No.4 Hamilton which include: Place, London W1J 7BQ, UK. • Your monthly subscription to AEROSPACE BACS Transfer: Pay by Bank Transfer (or by magazine BACS) into the Society’s bank account, quoting • Use of your RAeS post nominals as your name and membership number. Bank applicable details: • Over 400 global events yearly • Discounted rates for conferences Bank: HSBC plc • Online publications including Society News, Sort Code: 40-05-22 blogs and podcasts Account No: 01564641 • Involvement with your local branch BIC: MIDLGB2107K • Networking opportunities IBAN: GB52MIDL400522 01564641 • Support gaining Professional Registration • Opportunities & recognition with awards and medals • Professional development and support ..
    [Show full text]
  • The Connection
    The Connection ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 2 The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the contributors concerned and are not necessarily those held by the Royal Air Force Historical Society. Copyright 2011: Royal Air Force Historical Society First published in the UK in 2011 by the Royal Air Force Historical Society All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing. ISBN 978-0-,010120-2-1 Printed by 3indrush 4roup 3indrush House Avenue Two Station 5ane 3itney O72. 273 1 ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY President 8arshal of the Royal Air Force Sir 8ichael Beetham 4CB CBE DFC AFC Vice-President Air 8arshal Sir Frederick Sowrey KCB CBE AFC Committee Chairman Air Vice-8arshal N B Baldwin CB CBE FRAeS Vice-Chairman 4roup Captain J D Heron OBE Secretary 4roup Captain K J Dearman 8embership Secretary Dr Jack Dunham PhD CPsychol A8RAeS Treasurer J Boyes TD CA 8embers Air Commodore 4 R Pitchfork 8BE BA FRAes 3ing Commander C Cummings *J S Cox Esq BA 8A *AV8 P Dye OBE BSc(Eng) CEng AC4I 8RAeS *4roup Captain A J Byford 8A 8A RAF *3ing Commander C Hunter 88DS RAF Editor A Publications 3ing Commander C 4 Jefford 8BE BA 8anager *Ex Officio 2 CONTENTS THE BE4INNIN4 B THE 3HITE FA8I5C by Sir 4eorge 10 3hite BEFORE AND DURIN4 THE FIRST 3OR5D 3AR by Prof 1D Duncan 4reenman THE BRISTO5 F5CIN4 SCHOO5S by Bill 8organ 2, BRISTO5ES
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    The 2008 Annual Report of the International Space Exploration Coordination Group Released March 2009 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1 International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) – Annual Report:2008 CONTENTS Introduction …………………………………………………………………………… 4 Part 1: The Role of the ISECG 1.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………. 6 1.2 Working Groups of the ISECG …………………………………………………… 7 1.2.1 Enhancement of Public Engagement …………………………………………… 7 1.2.2 Establishment of Relationships with Existing International Working Groups …. 7 1.2.3 The International Space Exploration Coordination Tool (INTERSECT) ……. 8 1.2.4 The Space Exploration Interface Standards Working Group (ISWG) ………….. 8 1.2.5 Mapping the Space Exploration Journey ………………………………………... 8 Part 2: Current and Near-Term Activities of ISECG Members 2.1 Low Earth Orbit (LEO) …………………………………………………………… 10 2.1.1 The International Space Station (ISS) …………………………………………… 10 2.1.2 Emerging Government Capabilities …………………………………………….. 10 2.1.3 Emerging Commercial Providers ……………………………………………….. 11 2.2 Beyond LEO – The Moon and Mars ……………………………………………….. 11 2.2.1 Moon ……………………………………………………………………………… 11 2.2.2 Mars ………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Part 3: Progress in 2008 towards Opportunities for Integrated and Collaborative Space Exploration 3.1 Robotic Network Science – The International Lunar Network ……………………… 16 3.2 Joint Development for Robotic Exploration – Mars Sample Return ………………………… 17 3.3 Collaborative
    [Show full text]
  • The Raf Harrier Story
    THE RAF HARRIER STORY ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 2 The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the contributors concerned and are not necessarily those held by the Royal Air Force Historical Society. Copyright 2006: Royal Air Force Historical Society First published in the UK in 2006 by the Royal Air Force Historical Society All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Publisher in writing. ISBN 0-9530345-2-6 Printed by Advance Book Printing Unit 9 Northmoor Park Church Road Northmoor OX29 5UH 3 ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY President Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Michael Beetham GCB CBE DFC AFC Vice-President Air Marshal Sir Frederick Sowrey KCB CBE AFC Committee Chairman Air Vice-Marshal N B Baldwin CB CBE FRAeS Vice-Chairman Group Captain J D Heron OBE Secretary Group Captain K J Dearman Membership Secretary Dr Jack Dunham PhD CPsychol AMRAeS Treasurer J Boyes TD CA Members Air Commodore H A Probert MBE MA *J S Cox Esq BA MA *Dr M A Fopp MA FMA FIMgt *Group Captain N Parton BSc (Hons) MA MDA MPhil CEng FRAeS RAF *Wing Commander D Robertson RAF Wing Commander C Cummings Editor & Publications Wing Commander C G Jefford MBE BA Manager *Ex Officio 4 CONTENTS EARLY HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES AND EMERGING 8 STAFF TARGETS by Air Chf Mshl Sir Patrick Hine JET LIFT by Prof John F Coplin 14 EVOLUTION OF THE PEGASUS VECTORED
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Projects at the Institute of Origins
    PhD projects at the Institute of Origins. A list of possible PhD projects at the Institute of Origins appear in the following pages. If you have any questions regarding any projects please contact the individual supervisors. Also if you have other suggestions for a project please contact us as well. The chemical composition of star forming regions near and far .................................... 3 ! Modelling the solubilities of organic solids in hydrocarbon liquids: application to the geology and astrobiology of Titan. .................................................................................... 4! Modeling turbulent flows in solar quiescent prominences ...............................................5! The zoo of exo-planets..................................................................................................8! Understanding the formation of heavy negative ions at Titan and Enceladus................9! Mapping anthropogenic versus natural sources of atmospheric CO2 ............................11! Probing Large Scale Structure with High Energy Neutrinos.........................................13! Future Moon Missions and High Energy Neutrinos ......................................................15! Measuring Cosmic Particles and the Upper Atmosphere with LOFAR.........................17! Mimicking planetary environments for assessing the survivability of bacterial organisms within an artificial environmental chamber. A combined planetary atmosphere and microbiological study for exploring panspermia................................
    [Show full text]
  • Moonlite Pendine Impact Trials
    Penetrators for Planetary Exploration and Science Professor Alan Smith University College London’s Mullard Space Science Laboratory [email protected] 1 Landers and Impactors NASA Viking, 600kg, 1975, $1b NASA Spirit, 174kg, 2004, $820m NASA LCROSS, 2009, $79m NASA Deep Impact, 370kg, 2005 Penetrators . Low mass projectiles (<15kg) Detachable . High impact speed Propulsion Stage ~ up to 400 ms-1 Point of . Very tough ~10-50kgee Separation Payload . Penetrate surface and Instruments imbed therein . Undertake science- PDS bases measurements (Penetrator Delivery System) . Transmit results Penetrator Penetrator delivery Spin-Down Release from Spin-up & Orbiter Decelerate Reorient Penetrator Separation Penetrator & PDS surface Impact Delivery sequence courtesy SSTL Operate from below surface Why penetrators ? Advantages: Limitations: • Simpler architecture • Low mass limits payload • Low mass options • Low cost • Impact survival limits payload • Explore multiple sites option • Natural redundancy • Limited lifetime • Direct contact with sub-regolith • Limited telemetry capacity (drill, sampling) • Protected from environment (wind, radiation) Complementary to Soft Landers for in situ studies Heritage Military Heritage in instrumented impact projectiles Numerous laboratories looking at high velocity impacts with gas guns QinetiQ 1996: Mars96 (Russia/Lavochkin), 2 off, 60-80 ms-1 impact, each 65kg incl braking system. Lost when Mars96 failed to leave Earth orbit. 1999: Deep Space-2 (NASA/JPL), 2 off, 140-210ms-1 impact, each 3.6kg with entry shell.
    [Show full text]
  • KISS Lunar Volatiles Workshop 7-22-2013
    Future Lunar Missions: Plans and Opportunities Leon Alkalai, JPL New Approaches to Lunar Ice Detection and Mapping Workshop Keck Institute of Space Studies July 22nd – July 25th, 2013 California Institute of Technology Some Lunar Robotic Science & Exploration Mission Formulation Studies at JPL (2003 – 2013) MoonRise New Frontiers GRAIL (2005-2007) Moonlight (2003-2004) (2005-2012) Lunette – Discovery Proposal Pre-Phase A Network of small landers (2005-2011) MIRANDA: cold trap access (2010) Lunar Impactor (2006) Other Lunar Science & Exploration Studies at JPL (2003 – 2013) • Sample Acquisition and Transfer Systems (SATS) • Landers: hard landers, soft landers, powered descent, hazard avoidance, nuclear powered lander and rover • Sub-surface access: penetrators deployed from orbit, drills, heat- flow probe, etc. • Surface mobility: Short-range, long-range, access to cold traps in deep craters • CubeSats and other micro-spacecraft deployed e.g. gravity mapping • International Studies & Discussions: – MoonLITE lunar orbiter and probes with UKSA – Farside network of lunar landers, with ESA, CNES, IPGP – Lunar Exploration Orbiter (LEO) with DLR – Lunar Com Relay Satellite with ISRO – Canadian Space Agency: robotics, surface mobility – In-situ science with RSA, landers, rovers – JAXA lunar landers, rovers – Korean Space Agency 7/23/2013 L. Alkalai, JPL 3 Robotic Missions to the Moon: Just in the last decade: 2003 - 2013 • Smart-1 ESA September 2003 • Chang’e-1 China October 2007 • SELENE-1 Japan September 2007 • Chandrayaan-1 India October 2008 – M3, Mini-SAR USA • LRO USA June 2009 • LCROSS USA June 2009 • Chang’e-2 China October 2010 • GRAIL USA September 2011 • LADEE USA September 6 th , 2013 7/23/2013 L.
    [Show full text]
  • Servo Chatter Sunday 13Th May No
    Remember all the PALMERSTON NORTH AER ONEERS wonderful women in your life this Mother’s Day Servo Chatter Sunday 13th May No. 191 May 2018 Hamish’s Formost 150 Jet 1. Focus on Hamish’s jet 8. Buddy Box and Editor 2. Focus 9. Buddy Box 3. President and club captain 10. From the news desk 4. Results—Vintage 11. Events 5. Results—Tomboy 12. Events Index Indoor 13. Loop, roll competition 6. Club night 14. Your club 7. Club night Front Page Focus Formost 150 Pilot: Hamish Loveridge Hamish brought the ARF Vertigo kitset and took about a year to assemble it. The kit was designed for a 140-160 glow engine as a pusher however Hamish decided on a PST800R turbine which fitted. Due to the power plant change there were modifications made to the structure to prevent mid flight disassembly. The fuse is fibreglass painted in 2 pack paint and the 2 metre wings and stabs covered with Oracova. The colour scheme is nothing like it was when it was lifted out of the box. Over the last 8 years the plane has done a lot of fly- ing, the data does it has 25 hours on the clock which works out to be around 185 flights. The model holds 2 litres of A1 jet which allows enough for an 8 minute flight. Max RPM is 153000RPM and Idle is 53000RPM. The model has ProLink retracts and trailing link legs, BVM wheels and brakes. Two 2100mah Lipo rx batteries and one 4000mah battery for the onboard computer and starter motor.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosmic Visions
    Declaration of Interest in science instrumentation in response to the Announcement of Opportunity for Europa Jupiter System Mission (EJSM/Laplace) Cosmic Vision Candidate Surface Element Penetrators Proposers: Robert Gowen1, Alan Smith1, Richard Ambrosi6, Olga Prieto Ballesteros16, Simeon Barber2, Dave Barnes11, Chris Braithwaite9, John Bridges6, Patrick Brown5, Phillip Church10, Glyn Collinson1, Andrew Coates1, Gareth Collins5, Ian Crawford3, Veronica Dehant21, Michele Dougherty5, Julian Chela--Flores17, Dominic Fortes7, George Fraser6, Yang Gao4, Manuel Grande11, Andrew Griffiths1, Peter Grindrod7, Leonid Gurvits19, Axel Hagermann2, Toby Hopf5, Hauke Hussmann13, Ralf Jaumann13, Adrian Jones7, Geraint Jones1, Katherine Joy3, Ozgur Karatekin21, Günter Kargl20, Antonella Macagnano14, Anisha Mukherjee5, Peter Muller1, Ernesto Palomba12, Tom Pike5, Bill Proud9, Derek Pullen6, Francois Raulin15, Lutz Richter18, Simon Sheridan2, Mark Sims6, Frank Sohl13, Joshua Snape7, Jon Sykes6, Vincent Tong3, Tim Stevenson6, Lionel Wilson2, Ian Wright2, John Zarnecki2. Affiliations: 1:Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, UK., 2:Planetary and Space Sciences Research Institute, Open University, UK. 3:Birkbeck College, University of London, UK. 4:Surrey Space Centre, Guildford, UK. 5:Imperial College, London, UK. 6:University of Leicester, UK. 7:University College London, UK. 8:University of Lancaster, UK. 9: Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, UK. 10:QinetiQ, 11: University of Aberystwyth, UK. 12: Istituto di Fisica dello Spazio Interplanetario-INAF, Roma, Italy. 13: DLR, Berlin, Germany. 14:Institute of Microelectronics and Microsystem -CNR, Roma, Italy. 15: Université Paris, France. 16: Centro de Astrobiologia-INTA-CSIC, España. 17: Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste, Italy. 18: DLR, Bremen, Germany. 19: Joint Institute for VLBI in Europe (JIVE), Dwingeloo, The Netherlands. 20: IAF, Space Research Institute, Graz, Austria.
    [Show full text]
  • SWW SIA Annexes
    South West England and South East Wales Science and Innovation Audit Annexes A–F Annex A: Consortium membership, governance and consultation Annex B: Universities, Colleges and Research Organisations Annex C: LEPs and Local Authorities within SIA area Annex D: Science Parks and Innovation Centres Annex E: Theme Rationale Annex F: LEP / Welsh Government Strategic Alignment A Science and Innovation Audit Report sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy A–F Annex A: Consortium membership, governance and consultation Consortium Membership The following organisations were members of the South West England and South East Wales Science and Innovation Audit consortium, and were consulted during the development of the Expression of Interest, and subsequently during the SIA process. Business Aardman General Dynamics UK AgustaWestland / Finmeccanica Gooch & Housego Airbus in the UK Goonhilly Earth Station Ltd. Airbus Defence & Space (formerly HiETA Technologies Ltd. Cassidian) Airbus Group Innovations UK Huawei Airbus Group Endeavr Wales Ltd IBM Global Business Services Andromeda Capital IQE plc BAE Systems Johnson Matthey plc BBC Oracle Boeing Defence UK Ltd. Ortho Clinical Diagnostics Bristol is Open Ltd. Renishaw Broadcom UK Rolls Royce Centre For Modelling and Simulation South West Water ClusterHQ Toshiba Research Cray Watershed EDF Energy R&D UK Centre Wavehub First Group plc LEPs Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEP Swindon and Wiltshire LEP GFirst (Gloucestershire) LEP West of England LEP Heart of the South West
    [Show full text]